Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
No. 09-1053
a/k/a
Defendants.
No. 09-1056
of
Defendants Appellees,
and
PROFESSIONAL FORECLOSURE CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA,
Shapiro and Burson, LLP; ROBINHOOD ENTERPRISES,
a/k/a
Defendants.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News.
Raymond A. Jackson,
District Judge. (4:06-cv-00150-RAJ-FBS)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Louis
and
Brenda
Marks
appeal
from
the
district
Finding no
error, we affirm.
I.
The Marks first assert that the district court judge
erred in denying their motion for recusal.
prejudice
unless
are
not
disqualifying
extrajudicial source.
540, 554-55 (1994).
they
stem
from
an
source and, in any event, fail to show that the district court
was biased.
II.
The Marks counsel moved in district court to withdraw
based upon a conflict of interest with a firm he was joining.
The Marks did not respond, and the court granted the motion.
The
Marks
then
filed
motion
3
to
vacate
the
order
granting
would
not
be
granted.
The
Marks
contended
that
Brenda
Moreover, the
counsel,
unsupported.
so
their
assertions
regarding
his
intent
are
attorney
correctness
was
of
difficult
the
grant
does
of
not
the
call
motion
into
to
question
withdraw.
the
See
unless
interferes
with
Accordingly,
the
some
her
special
ability
district
court
motion to vacate.
circumstance
to
manage
did
not
err
of
confinement
legal
in
affairs).
denying
the
III.
Prior
to
the
grant
of
summary
judgment,
the
Marks
denied the motion, finding that the motion was untimely made
after having five months to conduct discovery.
On appeal, the
May
2,
2008,
the
district
court
entered
discovery,
dated
August
3.
She
asserted
that
her
and
her
access
to
documents.
On
September
8,
seeking
postponement
of
the
trial
date.
On
were having difficulties, during that time period they were able
to file the above-described motions, as well as several motions
for extension of time to respond to summary judgment motions,
numerous
responses
in
opposition
to
the
Defendants
various
In any event,
even if the time period was truncated, the Marks fail to allege
any specific prejudice from the failure to permit more time.
Accordingly,
the
district
court
did
not
err
in
denying
the
IV.
The Marks assert that, instead of granting the various
motions for summary judgment, the district court should have
V.
The Marks challenge the grant of summary judgment to
Wachovia
on
Procedures
judgment
their
Act
was
claim
under
(RESPA).
improper
the
The
given
Real
Marks
that
Estate
assert
they
Settlement
that
provided
summary
documentary
was
enacted
settlement process.
to
protect
homebuyers
during
the
See
Cohen v. J.P. Morgan Chase, 608 F. Supp. 2d 330, 345-46 & n.10
(E.D.N.Y.
notices
2009).
sent
to
However,
the
wrong
even
assuming
address
would
that
rate
violate
increase
RESPA,
the
Finally, Wachovia
of
Accordingly,
RESPA
the
resulted
district
in
no
court
harm
to
properly
Thus, any
the
granted
Marks.
summary
VI.
Finally,
improperly
the
dismissed
Marks
argue
Professional
that
the
Foreclosure
district
as
court
Defendant
There is no
proof of service in the record, and the Marks did not move in
district court for reconsideration of the dismissal.
On appeal,
no
reason
district court.
for
their
failure
to
submit
proof
to
the
court.
and
legal
We
dispense
contentions
with
are
8
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
materials
before
the
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED